Exploring thoughts site
by Swami Shankaratilaka
A student asked me: “In case someone attacks me, I defend myself and I kill him. Would this action be good? Not morally good, but would it be good because it is correct and convenient, since I protect my life from an external attack? Therefore the good, is a circumstantial morality?”.
Death is not good, killing is not good, but it becomes convenient because you were going to be an unfair victim of someone who wasn´t good. Because he wants to kill you and killing is not good in any case. Thus you have the right. It is correct that you defend yourself, and it is convenient for the society that this doesn´t kill you, because you are a higher value than that who wants to kill you; therefore, it should not prevail that the bad want to kill the good. The good and the bad is a circumstantial situation, segmented and subjectively analyzable; therefore we cannot talk about the good and the bad. Killing is not good, but the leopard has to kill for eating, otherwise it would die.
Real predators kill unnecessarily, then an unbalance will be produced in the chain of the nature. But the mind is not good by itself, and here comes the subjective application for whom or for what, etc. That is why we cannot be stupid, nor taking opinions not correctly considered; for this reason, we study shastra, otherwise our reasoning are mistaken. In old times, our debates were more complex because it was required that we reach to agreements. Now we can have access to more resolutive opinions. It seems for me that the good and the correct are not well established. The problem comes when people do not interpret well the Scriptures, or give their own value, or the Scriptures they follow are perverse, or confine the moral values that can be good or not at that time and move them to without reflection, and specially without charity. Is is not this adharmic?
More Info firstname.lastname@example.org